Thornhill's gravity model

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:28 am

willendure wrote:It just sounds like hand wavy nonsense to me.
I thought you intimated hand wavy nonsense is fine as long as it works;
willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Clearly the fabric of space-time is distorted into a curve...or does that sound a bit too crackpottery.

Not if it is right.

And according to you, just because it sounds nonsense, doesn't mean it is wrong;
willendure wrote:Quantum mechanics is bat shit crazy too, and that also is holding up well. That is my point, just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't mean it is wrong.

It seems you hold different standards to ideas you disagree with.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:32 am

willendure wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:
willendure wrote:Yes, gravity acts on different scales - but it is not enough for an electrical gravity theory to only explain one scale.


Sorry to butt in but I believe we are still waiting for your answers to a couple of very valid points made earlier:
1 - Do you accept Mass based Gravity has been falsified? Yes/No?


No,

Yet still no passed observations or tests supplied with 300 years of history to draw from...

Cognitive dissonance can be a b***h...
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby AltClut » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:39 am

willendure wrote:
AltClut wrote:try it with a tin the same size and mass of the earth. let me know how it goes...


The fact is, that the tin that I can hold in my hand reveals the gravity acts on the marble inside it. If you want electrical gravity to be accepted, you still have to explain how that is possible regardless of the outcome of your over-sized version of the experiment.

Yes, gravity acts on different scales - but it is not enough for an electrical gravity theory to only explain one scale.


The fact is, you are the one advocating one theory over another - not I. So, prove it. Demonstrate that your are right and that Wal Thornhill is wrong, otherwise you are just another troll, trolling an internet forum, just for kicks.
AltClut
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:32 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:02 pm

AltClut wrote:The fact is, (willendure), you are the one advocating one theory over another - not I. So, prove it. Demonstrate that your are right and that (Bengt Nyman, Ralph Sansbury and) Wal Thornhill is wrong, otherwise you are just another troll, trolling an internet forum, just for kicks.

Thank You AltClut, I second that.
I wish that others would speak up as well. Willendure is systematically disrupting work in progress without contributing or adding anything.

Thunderbolts Forum
For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:21 pm

AltClut wrote:The fact is, you are the one advocating one theory over another - not I. So, prove it. Demonstrate that your are right and that Wal Thornhill is wrong, otherwise you are just another troll, trolling an internet forum, just for kicks.


I am not trolling for kicks. I am objectively questioning Thornhill's hypothesis. I think it is a very poor quality hypothesis. I also think that those that believe it are accepting it too easily, are gullible perhaps. I also think that the EU has many great and valuable ideas, it has certainly been an eye opening journey for me to learn about many things on here. I think that Thornhill's gravity model is very harmful and seriously lowers the credibility of the better ideas by its association with the EU.

I am not proving one theory over another. I was pressed to give my view on mass based gravity and gave it, but I am also happy for the purposes of being on here, for that to be my seen as my private unproven opinion. On the other hand Thornhill's dipole model is garbage, and I will openly attack it.

Questioning a hypothesis is not disruptive or not contributing anything. All hypotheses should - must - be questioned. Those that believe the hypothesis should not complain about the attack, not if they are confident that they are right. But they should be able to provide explanations to counter examples that contradict their hypothesis.

So I point out that Thornhill's model cannot explain why a marble in a tin experiences gravitational acceleration at -10 metres per second squared, just the same as a marble not in a tin. Do I get a nice explanation of why it does indeed explain this phenomenon, and why my reasoning about this is wrong, or do I just get complaints about the nature of my questioning, or some hand waving justification?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:00 pm

willendure wrote:...

Ralph Sansbury/Wal Thornhill dipole gravity is far from a complete or finished theory.
That does not give you the right to call it garbage. While you badmouth their work you are unable to respond intelligently to http://www.dipole.se; the theory itself, or the explanation how gravity is communicated between bodies in space, or how come a marble in your tin still demonstrates the effect of gravity.
You are hellbent on being negative and destructive and you contribute nothing !!
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Cargo » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:50 pm

Think about this. The assumed orbital nature of atoms is not influenced or in communication with the Earth's Gravity.
We on the planet Earth are not heavier when on the far side of the Earth from the Sun.
There must be boundary layer where the Gravity inherit within a body does not influence anything within another external body.

Is there a better reasoning for the tides besides the Moon's Mass/Gravity 'pulling' on the Oceans?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:04 am

Cargo wrote:1. The "assumed" orbital nature of atoms is not influenced or in communication with the Earth's Gravity.
2. We on planet Earth are not heavier when on the far side of the Earth from the Sun.
3. There must be boundary layer where the Gravity inherit within a body does not influence anything within another external body.
4. Is there a better reasoning for the tides besides the Moon's Mass/Gravity 'pulling' on the Oceans?

1A. The orbital nature of electrons around nuclei is pretty well established. The nature of charges, sub particles and atoms are the cause of gravity. The orbital nature of atoms is influencing and influenced by gravity to Earth as well as to other bodies. The communication is electromagnetic.
1B. Gravity is a result of charged sub particles in atoms in separate bodies "Coulomb forcing" each other.
2. One body does not shield a second body from gravity to a third body. When you are between the earth and the sun you are under earth gravity minus sun gravity. When earth is between you and the sun you are under earth gravity plus sun gravity. The difference is 0.0000616% of your body weight or 0.006 grams per 100 kg of body weight. Newton and NASA agree on this. Your "mass", or content of electric charge, is of course the same.
3. There is no distance at which Coulomb's law suddenly goes away.
4. Is there a better reason for the tides than the influence of the moon ? No, I don't think so.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby neilwilkes » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:05 am

Bengt Nyman wrote: 4. Is there a better reason for the tides than the influence of the moon ? No, I don't think so.

There must be.
The Moon takes a day to orbit the earth, so if tides are just the moon's influence then why do we get 2 high tides a day instead of just one? (and I accept completely that I may be in ignorance of a very simple explanation, but I have thought Centrifugal force might play a part too)
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby neilwilkes » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:27 am

willendure wrote: neilwilkes wrote:
willendure wrote:
Yes, gravity acts on different scales - but it is not enough for an electrical gravity theory to only explain one scale.

Sorry to butt in but I believe we are still waiting for your answers to a couple of very valid points made earlier:
1 - Do you accept Mass based Gravity has been falsified? Yes/No?

No,


How so, given all the facts already posted by Aardwolf? By your own reasoning it is falsified.

willendure wrote: neilwilkes wrote:
I'd also like to ask a question of my own as a relative (no pun intended) newcomer here - what is your definition of Gravity? As for the whole "Electric Gravity" being so flawed, have you ever heard of Electrogravitics?

Electrogravitics; You mean the ionic wind effect?


No - I do *not* mean the Ionic Wind effect - that is something totally different & was proved to be different by Townsend Brown & Dr Paul Biefeld way back in the early 20th century. They found that the force observed by Brown (very difficult to give a succinct description of the Biefeld-Brown effect in a few sentences but I will try if it is needful) where once energized with between 75,000 and 300,000 vDC the connecting arm rotated as each Gravitor (description below) moved in the direction of it's positive pole - and this is the important part - they ruled out an Ionic Wind effect by simply immersing the capacitor in a tank of oil.
The claim that Electrogravitics is simply an ionic wind smells like a classic "nothing to see here" statement when asked about a technology that succeeded so spectacularly that it immediately went Deep Black.

Notes:
Gravitor - A term coined by Brown for his electric capacitor device. These units consisted of a series of massive electrically conductive plates made of lead separated by electrically insulating sheets of glass, which served as the capacitor's dielectric (simply a substance that does not conduct electricity). Another version used a dielectric moulded from a mixture of lead monoxide & beeswax encased in Bakelite. Brown also patented yet another version in the 1920's made with aluminium plates & paraffin.
When energized with up to 150,000 vDC, Brown's Gravitor developed thrust in the direction of it's positively charged end. One such device (and this is where it starts to get interesting in relation to this thread) which weighed 10kg was observed to generate a maximum thrust of 0.1kg, or about 1% of it's weight and when oriented upright on a scale and energized it proceeded to gain or lose weight depending on how the charge polarity was applied
(my italics)

The electrogravitic effect seems to depend on the amount of charge stored in the capacitors - as the applied voltages were increased & a greater amount of charge was stored the effect became greater and moreover because the intensity of the effect depended on the capacitor's mass, Brown concluded the induced motion must be due to the capacitor's ability to generate a localized gravitational field.

This is nothing to do with Ionic Wind effect.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:45 am

neilwilkes wrote:...Is there a better reason for the tides than the influence of the moon ? There must be...

https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... -cause.htm
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:44 am

neilwilkes wrote: One such device standing upright ... was observed to ... gain or lose 1% of it's weight depending on the charge polarity (of the capacitor).

This makes perfect sense according to Coulomb Dipole Gravity.
However, it would also work independent of the cause of gravity if the surface of the earth was sufficiently charged, which it normally is not.

P.S. Without Coulomb Dipole Gravity and without charging the entire surface of the earth, this experiment should show the capacitor gaining some "weight" no matter how you turn the capacitor.

Excellent point neilwilkes !
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby webolife » Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:22 pm

Cargo wrote:There must be boundary layer where the Gravity inherit within a body does not influence anything within another external body.
(Italics mine)
Let's keep in mind that:
1. Gravity is not a property of matter, ie. it is not inherent within a body.
2. Gravitation is an action between and within fields, a universal field, and well described by Newton, et.al.
3. Rather than a thing or group of things, a noun per se, it is a verb, something that happens to things, not an attraction from within, rather a pressure from without.
4. This should not be a choice between gravitation and electricity, rather a question of how electrical fields and gravitational fields are related; eg. why do "charge" and "mass" operated according to the same rules, the same geometry, the same distance squared scaling effects? How are gravitation, light, and electricity communicated across space, a distance, however small or large... by mechanisms? Vectors? Properties of space itself [I don't mean warped spacetime]? Does anyone besides me muse about both "charge" and "mass" being synonyms for "load" or "weight"?
5. There is no boundary where objects do not interact, or act one upon another. Hence we see vastly distant stars, measure their heat indirectly by means of spectroscopy, and directly with thermocouples; experience measurable perturbations in passing conjunctions of planets, lunar tidal effects; as well as electrostatic and magnetic effects across relatively small distances that may also manifest as light actions. Forms of energy are instantly and conservedly converted from one to another in every observed phenomenon to date. All are connected...there is a unified field still awaiting to be fully and properly described.
Thornhill's [R. Sansbury's] electrigravitic theory involving electronic dipoles is not fully developed and not fully verified experimentally, but it is not garbage. A dipole is simply a way of modelling a directed force, a vector. A physical response to the stimulus of external pressure.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby querious » Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:57 pm

neilwilkes wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote: 4. Is there a better reason for the tides than the influence of the moon ? No, I don't think so.

There must be.
The Moon takes a day to orbit the earth, so if tides are just the moon's influence then why do we get 2 high tides a day instead of just one? (and I accept completely that I may be in ignorance of a very simple explanation, but I have thought Centrifugal force might play a part too)


Oh my goodness, the moon orbits the earth in a day? Try 28 days (or something like that). The tides are due to the earth's rotation under the moon.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby querious » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:23 pm

webolife wrote:why do "charge" and "mass" operated according to the same rules, the same geometry, the same distance squared scaling effects? . . .
Thornhill's [R. Sansbury's] electrigravitic theory involving electronic dipoles is not fully developed and not fully verified experimentally, but it is not garbage. A dipole is simply a way of modelling a directed force, a vector. A physical response to the stimulus of external pressure.


Weboflife,
Thorhill's theory IS garbage, because the field from a dipole falls off with the inverse cube of distance, not the inverse square, as with isolated charges. As soon as you get "pretty far" from a dipole, the effects of the opposite charges cancel out. A dipole field just gets weaker much faster than gravity and single electric charges.

querious
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests